Building Water Sensitive Urban Planning

1. Building Water Sensitive Urban Planning A project sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Facilitated by Liz Sharp Senior Lecturer University of Bradford/Pennine Water Group For further information see: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy/ha2.htm

2. Context Defra IUD pilots Aire Strategic Stakeholder package Mitigation workshop

3. The study boundary

4. A planning process that is sensitive to: Need to reduce flood risk; Ecological needs of water ways and surroundings; Aesthetic benefits of bringing water and people closer together; Local social and economic need ….use workshop to explore what in practice Water Sensitive Urban Planning

5. To support mutual learning about water sensitive urban planning, in particular: What potential to contribute to sustainable urban development? How supported by legislative framework? How is framework applied in plans & practice in Bradford and Leeds? What is needed to further influence current current practices? Objectives of Workshop

6. Our aim today is to discover and explore institutional roles & tensions around the governance of water; We will be respectful to you in terms of seeking to understand your perspective on what you do and why you do it; We ask that you are likewise respectful of others. Attitudes today

7. Coffee Toilets Fire exits & assembly point Logistics

8. Legislative Framework for Water Sensitive Urban Planning A project sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Liz Sharp Senior Lecturer University of Bradford/Pennine Water Group For further information see: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy/ha2.htm

9. Three main spheres of control: Rivers and bodies of water Drains Houses and buildings What follows is a ‘crude’ analysis – to be improved by you when I’ve finished! Overview of Framework

10. EU water framework directive sets context for Environment Agency (EA)’s control of water ways ‘Good ecological status’ required by 2015, to be achieved through discharge and abstraction licensing EA also responsible for flood risk management Rivers and water ways

11. Incentive (for investment in WSUP) WSUP could help improve water quality & reduce flood water quantity; Influence EA regulate discharge, are consulted about planning & can fund flood defences Barriers Limited time/budget based on a narrow CBA; largely rely on others to take action; can only fund flood defence not flood prevention i.e. WSUP. Rivers and water ways

12. “Drains” means pipes, culverts and sewers that convey surface water to treatment works or water courses; They are variously the responsibility of riparian owners, the local drainage authority and/or the water company; In UK drains frequently go into combined sewers, adding to water treatment costs. Drains

13. Incentive Could save on future pumping & treatment costs &/or pipe infrastructure if drainage is minimised; Influence Planning consultee; Barriers Ability to invest limited by regulator OFWAT & shareholder value; Incentive limited because of shared responsibility with LDA/riparian owners. Water Company

14. Incentive Political & community interest in preventing floods in local areas; Influence Consultee for planning; permissive rights of influence; Barriers Limited money/time & sometimes limited expertise; other political priorities Local Drainage Authority

15. Incentive (Possibly) prevent risk of damage to their property/neighbours properties Influence None Barriers Not aware of responsibilities; hard to work in co-operation with many other riparian owners. Riparian Owners

16. PPS 25 (Dec 2006) puts new responsibilities in relation to floods & surface drainage in the planning process; Like all planning, tiered process of responsibility – Regional Planning Authority impacts on Local Planning Authority impacts on specific site potential; Requirements of surface drainage and flooding compete for space with the pressure to develop housing. Buildings and planning

17. Incentive Flooding is significant cost to area; Influence Produce ‘Regional Flood Risk Assessment’ which informs Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategy AND local Strategic Flood Risk Assessments. Limitations Must balance flood risk with development pressure Regional Planning Authority

18. Incentive Desire to avoid costs of (and potential “blame” for) flooding in their area; Influence Produce Strategic Flood Risk Assessment & grant planning permission Barriers Limited knowledge of flooding & surface drainage; tight deadlines for planning decisions; fear of appeal. Local Planning Authority

19. Incentive Need to satisfy LPA that a) development is appropriate for location’s flood vulnerability (sequential test) b) that surface water is sustainability drained c) there are plans for exceedence of surface water system. If development is large or in flood vulnerable zone must produce ‘Flood Risk Assessment’. Influence Choice of what is implemented and how (within planning permission) Barriers Lack of knowledge/usual way of doing things; desire to maximise value from development. Owner/developer

20. Is this right…. Have I mis-represented something, or missed out some crucial factors? This explains systems in theory, but how do they work in practice? (The afternoon!) What stages are RFRA and SFRAs in Aire valley? What is/can be done while the latter are still in development? Is this legislative system enough to implement WSUP? Concluding questions